BEARZ77 wrote:I'm just asking this question to make sure I understand the situation right. Doesn't WSU athletics operate in the red w/o a 4-5 million dollar subsidy from the general fund. Meaning that to be able to pay it's athletes a stipend, just as every other Valley school they will either have to cut something, find a way to generate more money, or have to depend on an even bigger bailout from the schools overall budget. Granted WSU's athletic department is spending more currently and generating more revenue by a considerable amount than most of the other MVC schools, but unlike the upper level BCS schools, they are still operating in the red w/o a subsidy. So while they may have more options in how they go about it, they still don't have the money currently w/o changing something to pay for this change. True or not ?
According to USA Today, WSU currently spends $24,132,710 on its athletics programs, and has $23,643,249 in revenues, and $6,520,676 of those "revenues" are a subsidy from institutional funds such as student fees, state money, and institutional support (about 27.58% of reported revenues). After the subsidy, WSU's athletics still garner a $489,461 loss.
WSU's subsidy, compared to most institutions, is very low. Basically, their revenues that come from things like ticket sales and rights/licensing comes to a little more than $17 million. Fun fact: Of all D-I athletics departments, Boise State is the only non-BCS school that subsidizes its programs less than WSU, and that's by a very small margin (even if they do have $20 million more in revenue than WSU).
As a comparison (because it's my school), Missouri State has $15,495,062 in athletics spending, which they balance with $15,495,062 in revenues, with $8,451,702 in subsidies (or 54.54% of revenues).
That's about typical for most public institutions MO State's size. Revenues from things like ticket sales and rights/licensing come to a little over $7 million. Illinois State makes about the same in non-subsidized revenues, but spends more money and therefore subsidizes their programs more. SIU also makes about the same in non-subsidized revenue as MSU and ISUr, but spends more than both and therefore subsidizes more than both. SIU's athletics also appear to operate at a $3 million loss even after subsidies.
UNI does the second best in the Valley, where it makes about $9 million in non-subsidized revenue (so more than MSU, ISUr, and SIU), but but it spends only $1.5 million more than MSU, so its subsidy is lower.
Of the public schools, Indiana State is easily in the worst position. A $12,578,396 budget, with $12,761,811 in revenues - but $9,518,604 of those are subsidies, amounting to 74.59% of the revenues. That also means they make just a little over $3 million in non-subsidized revenue.
Info from:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/financestl;dr: WSU does incredibly well for itself, UNI does comparatively well, while MSU, SIU, and ISUr are typical for midsized public universities. ISUb's athletics department doesn't get much at all in ticket sales, and is a bad spot financially.
